|
Acknowledgements,
Publications
and Tables Padraig O’Kiely, Aidan Moloney, Thomas Keating and Patrick
Shiels Main Paper |
Teagasc [Irish Agriculture & Food
Development Authority] Homepage |
The authors gratefully acknowledge the considerable contribution of many colleagues to this project, in particular the technical, farm and clerical staff at Grange Research Centre. John Marron, James Hamill and Vincent McHugh, together with the staff of Grange Laboratories and other technical staff at Grange provided a vital, skilled technical contribution. Similarly, Grange farm and service staff willingly undertook considerable work in making and feeding silages, and other allied activities. Mary Smith and Ann Gilsenan always provided clerical support to a very high standard.
Many parts of the work in this report involved fruitful collaboration with other Teagasc research scientists, as well as with colleagues from University College Dublin (Prof. P. Caffrey, Dept. Animal Science and Production; Dr. E. Doyle, Dept. Industrial Microbiology) and Dublin City University (Dr. M. O’Connell, Biological Services; Dr. L. Killen, Computer Applications).
Corcoran, B., Shiels, P., O'Kiely, O'Connell, M. (1996). A study of bacterial population dynamics in inoculated farm-scale grass silos. Proceedings of Eleventh International Silage Conference, Aberystwyth, p 244-245.
Keating, T. and O’Kiely, P. (1998). Replacing old permanent grassland with ryegrass swards. Impact on silage-based beef production. Farm and Food, 8 (4): 28-32.
Keating, T. and O’Kiely, P. (1999). Comparison of old permanent grassland, Lolium perenne and Lolium multiflorum swards grown for silage. 1. Effects on beef production per hectare. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (submitted).
Keating, T. and O’Kiely, P. (1999). Comparison of old permanent grassland, Lolium perenne and Lolium multiflorum swards grown for silage. 2. Effects on conservation characteristics in laboratory silos. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (submitted).
Keating, T. and O’Kiely, P. (1999). Comparison of old permanent grassland, Lolium perenne and Lolium multiflorum swards grown for silage. 3. Effects of varying fertiliser nitrogen application rates. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (submitted).
Keating, T. and O’Kiely, P. (1999). Comparison of old permanent grassland, Lolium perenne and Lolium multiflorum swards grown for silage. 4. Effects of varying the harvesting dates. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (submitted).
O'Kiely, P. (1996). Aerobic stability of unwilted silages treated with additives at feed-out. Proceedings of Eleventh International Silage Conference, Aberystwyth, p 246-247.
O'Kiely, P. (1996). Performance of beef cattle offered grass silages made using bacterial inoculants. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 35: 1-15.
O’Kiely, P. (1997). Application of sulphites to grasses differing in pH and their effects on aerobic stability. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 36: 105 [also in Proceedings of 23rd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 115-116].
O’Kiely, P. (1997). Conservation characteristics of grass ensiled in laboratory silos following the application of a bacterial inoculant at ensiling. Proceedings of Fifth British Grassland Society Research Conference, p 145-146.
O’Kiely, P., Bracken, C. and Doyle, E. (1997). Aerobic stability of silages made from forages treated with sulphites at ensiling. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 36: 104 [also in Proceedings of 23rd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 111-112].
O’Kiely, P., Bracken, C. and Doyle, E. (1997). Chemical composition of silages made with the application of sulphites at ensiling. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 36: 104-105 [also in Proceedings of 23rd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 113-114].
O’Kiely, P. and Moloney, A.P. (1997). Ruminal digestion of silage in the presence of sulphites: dose response pattern. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 36: 104 [also in Proceedings of 23rd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 109-110].
O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., Killen, L., and Shannon, A. (1997). A computer program to calculate the cost of providing ruminants with home-produced feedstuffs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 19: 23-36.
O'Riordan, E.G. and O'Kiely, P. (1996). Potential of beef production systems based on grass. Proceedings of IGAPA beef conference, Portlaoise, p 1-34.
Shiels, P., Moloney, A.P., O’Kiely, P. and Porter, M.G. (1999). A note on the estimation of the dry matter concentration of ruminal particulate digesta. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 38 (in press).
Shiels, P., O'Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P. and Caffrey, P.J. (1996). The effects of a bacterial inoculant or formic acid on the fermentation and nutritive value of grass silage and the interaction between silage and the quality of supplementary concentrates. Proceedings of Eleventh International Silage Conference, Aberystwyth, 56-57.
Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P. and Caffrey, P. (1998). Digestion and nitrogen retention in steers offered grass silages made with no additive, formic acid or a bacterial inoculant, and supplemented with two levels of concentrates. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Scarborough, England, 23-25 March, p 73.
Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P. and Caffrey, P. (1998). Rumen digestion in steers offered three grass silages supplemented with two levels of concentrates. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 37: in press [also in Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, UCD Belfield, 19 and 20 March, 1998, p 91-92].
Shiels, P., O'Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., Corcoran, B., O'Connell, and Caffrey, P.J. (1996). The potential of different species and strains of bacteria to influence silage fermentation and nutritive value (experiment 1). Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 35 (1): 74. [also Proceedings of 22nd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 5-6].
Shiels, P., O'Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., Corcoran, B., O'Connell, and Caffrey, P.J. (1996). The potential of different species and strains of bacteria to influence silage fermentation and nutritive value (experiment 2). Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 35 (1): 64. [also Proceedings of 22nd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 69-70].
Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., Corcoran, B., O’Connell, M. and Caffrey, P.J. (1998). The potential of silage inoculants with different species and strains of lactic acid bacteria to influence rumen metabolism in steers. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 37: p 114 [also in Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, UCD Belfield, 19 and 20 March, 1998, p 93-94].
Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., O’Connell, M., Corcoran, B. and Caffrey, P.J. (1999). Conservation characteristics of grass ensiled in laboratory silos following treatment with different strains and species of lactic acid bacteria. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 38: in press [also in Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, UCD, Belfield, March 25 and 26, p 67-68].
Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., and Caffrey, P.J. (1999). Combining sodium formate with a lactobacillus plantarum inoculant applied to herbage at ensiling. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 38: in press [also in Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, UCD, Belfield, March 25 and 26, p 65-66].
Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., O’Connell, M., Corcoran, B. and Caffrey, P.J. (1999). Digestibility and nitrogen retention in cattle offered silages made with different strains and species of lactic acid bacteria. Proceedings of 12th International Silage Conference, Uppsala, Sweden (in press).
|
|
Table 1.1. Botanical composition of old permanent grassland sward (% of tillers).
Grass species |
% |
|---|---|
Meadow grasses (Poa sp.) |
43 |
Bent grasses (Agrostis sp.) |
26 |
Perennial ryegrass |
10 |
Scutch grass |
7 |
Meadow foxtail |
5 |
Yorkshire fog |
3 |
Cocksfoot |
2 |
Red fescue |
2 |
Other |
2 |
Table 1.2. Grass dry matter (DM) yield, digestibility (DMD) and ensilability, averaged over 3 seasons.
.
|
Yield (t DM/ha)
|
|
DMD (g/kg)
|
|
WSC1 (g/L)
|
|
Buffer. Capacity2
|
1water soluble carbohydrates; 2buffering capacity (mg lactic acid/g DM); 3old permanent grassland; 4perennial ryegrass, and 5Italian ryegrass
Table 1.3. Estimated output (relative to the old permanent grassland sward) of harvested grass, silage, liveweight and estimated carcass gain per hectare.
|
|
Old permanent grassland |
Perennial ryegrass |
Italian ryegrass |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Grass DM harvested (t/ha) |
14.02 (1.00) |
14.31 (1.02) |
16.97 (1.21) |
Edible silage DM recovered (t/ha) |
11.97 (1.00) |
11.85 (0.99) |
13.32 (1.11) |
LWG (kg/ha |
1531 (1.00) |
1567 (1.02) |
1722 (1.12) |
Estimated carcass gain (kg/ha |
874 (1.00) |
945 (1.08) |
1054 (1.21) |
|
|
|
|
Grass DM harvested (t/ha) |
14.90 (1.00) |
15.31 (1.03) |
15.25 (1.02) |
Edible silage DM recovered (t/ha) |
10.55 (1.00) |
11.20 (1.06) |
10.91 (1.03) |
LWG (kg/ha |
1042 (1.00) |
1272 (1.22) |
1319 (1.27) |
Estimated carcass gain (kg/ha |
610 (1.00) |
754 (1.24) |
775 (1.27) |
Table 1.4. Silage conservation characteristics in year 3.
|
|
Old permanent grassland |
Perennial ryegrass |
Italian ryegrass |
|---|---|---|---|
pH |
4.3 |
4.0 |
3.8 |
Fermentation efficiency1 |
2.8 |
3.8 |
4.0 |
Recovery of ensiled DM (g/kg) |
947 |
955 |
913 |
Effluent DM loss (g/kg DM ensiled) |
21 |
26 |
36 |
Aerobic deterioration2 |
40 |
64 |
66 |
1lactic acid/ (acetic acid + ethanol); 2silage heating when exposed to air (accumulated temperature rise over 5 days exposure to air; oC).
Table 2.1. Conservation characteristics of unwilted silages made under difficult ensiling conditions - mean of 88 experiments.
|
|
No additive |
Formic acid |
Inoculant |
SEM |
Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DM (g/kg) |
156 |
164 |
157 |
0.7 |
*** |
Crude protein (g/kg DM) |
222 |
231 |
224 |
1.3 |
*** |
in vitro DMD (g/kg) |
660 |
671 |
652 |
1.9 |
*** |
Lactic acid (g/kg DM) |
61 |
42 |
59 |
3.3 |
*** |
Acetic acid (g/kg DM) |
40 |
26 |
39 |
0.8 |
*** |
Propionic acid (g/kg DM) |
9 |
4 |
10 |
0.4 |
*** |
Butryic acid (g/kg DM) |
15 |
8 |
14 |
0.9 |
*** |
Ethanol (g/kg DM) |
18 |
31 |
17 |
1.2 |
*** |
WSC (g/kg DM) |
11 |
17 |
11 |
0.5 |
*** |
Ammonia-N (g/kg N) |
199 |
117 |
201 |
5.9 |
*** |
pH |
4.77 |
4.55 |
4.77 |
0.032 |
*** |
Silage DM recovery (g/kg) |
835 |
857 |
837 |
4.8 |
** |
Accumulated oC rise to day 5 |
64 |
51 |
63 |
1.9 |
*** |
Table 2.2 Untreated grass composition at ensiling - mean (s.d.)
|
|
Experiment 2.89 |
Experiment 2.90 |
|---|---|---|
DM (g/kg) |
--- |
151 (9.9) |
Crude protein (g/kg DM) |
201 (21.8) |
203 (18.0) |
IVDMD (g/kg) |
723 (16.8) |
781 (37.0) |
WSC (g/L) |
17 (7.1) |
20 (4.7) |
Buffering capacity (mEq/kg DM) |
605 (51.5) |
598 (56.6) |
Ash (g/kg DM) |
101 (6.3) |
100 (9.7) |
Table 2.3 Mean (s.d.) silage composition 'as fed' in the growth study (day 256 to 354 post ensiling) (g/kg DM unless otherwise stated) - Experiment 2.89
|
|
Untreated |
Formic acid |
Inoculant |
|---|---|---|---|
DM (g/kg) |
166 (4.5) |
191 (6.7) |
165 (8.4) |
in-vitro DMD (g/kg) |
623 (9.0) |
680 (10.5) |
629 (15.9) |
DOMD |
536 (8.1) |
604 (12.1) |
530 (16.7) |
Ash |
111 (5.3) |
99 (5.6) |
130 (11.9) |
Crude protein |
154 (8.1) |
197 (5.3) |
161 (8.6) |
NDF |
572 (14.3) |
496 (9.9) |
538 (6.4) |
ADF |
337 (10.2) |
321 (7.7) |
351 (13.5) |
pH |
5.24 (0.126) |
4.08 (0.124) |
5.19 (0.180) |
Lactic acid |
12 (8.8) |
85 (11.1) |
15 (18.7) |
Acetic acid |
51 (3.6) |
21 (5.4) |
49 (6.6) |
Propionic acid |
16 (2.3) |
2 (1.5) |
16 (2.4) |
Butytric acid |
35 (5.9) |
2 (4.7) |
33 (6.6) |
Total VFA |
102 (7.6) |
25 (8.5) |
97 (10.8) |
Ethanol |
10 (6.8) |
10 (4.3) |
13 (6.7) |
NH3-N (g/kg total N) |
265 (32.0) |
84 (21.1) |
270 (36.0) |
WSC (g/L) |
2 (0.9) |
5 (0.9) |
2 (0.5) |
WSC (g/kg DM) |
11 (4.7) |
21 (3.0) |
10 (2.4) |
Table 2.4 Mean (s.d.) chemical composition of the silages 'as fed' in the animal growth study (days 90 to 174 post ensiling) (g/kg DM unless otherwise stated) - Experiment 2.90
|
|
Untreated |
Formic acid |
Inoculant |
|---|---|---|---|
DM (g/kg) |
169 (4.4) |
188 (9.6) |
172 (6.6) |
Crude protein |
206 (21.2) |
198 (8.1) |
196 (9.2) |
In-vitro DMD (g/kg) |
749 (19.7) |
780 (13.4) |
767 (32.8) |
DOMD |
662 (20.6) |
705 (14.3) |
683 (37.4) |
Ash |
97 (4.7) |
83 (3.8) |
94 (4.7) |
pH |
4.40 (0.098) |
3.97 (0.076) |
4.24 (0.276) |
Lactic acid |
64 (14.3) |
83 (11.2) |
93 (32.9) |
Acetic acid |
60 (7.5) |
17 (3.0) |
39 (14.8) |
Propionic acid |
3 (1.0) |
1 (0.3) |
2 (1.0) |
Butyric acid |
3 (3.5) |
0 (0.5) |
2 (2.3) |
NH3-N (g/kg total N) |
80 (13.4) |
48 (16.6) |
79 (16.1) |
Ethanol |
30 (12.7) |
26 (5.8) |
24 (10.2) |
WSC (g/kg aqueous phase) |
2 (0.4) |
3 (1.3) |
7 (2.1) |
WSC (g/kg DM) |
9 (1.9) |
14 (6.0) |
34 (10.2) |
Table 2.5. Effect of silage additive and concentrate supplementation on intake and animal performance (individual diets) - Experiment 2.89
Silage (S) |
Untreated |
Untreated |
Formic |
Formic |
Inoculant |
Inoculant |
|
Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Concentrate (C) (kg/d) |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
s.e.m |
SxC |
Silage DMI (kg/d) |
6.1a |
5.1b |
7.4c |
5.8d |
6.1a |
5.1b |
0.09 |
** |
Conc. DMI (kg/d) |
0.0 |
2.5 |
0.0 |
2.5 |
0.0 |
2.5 |
0.00 |
- |
Total DMI (kg/d) |
6.1a |
7.6b |
7.4b |
8.3c |
6.1a |
7.6b |
0.11 |
*** |
Starting LW (kg) |
353 |
353 |
353 |
353 |
352 |
351 |
0.7 |
NS |
Final LW (kg) |
428a |
475bd |
450c |
467b |
428a |
482d |
4.6 |
*** |
LWG (g/d) |
772a |
1241bd |
989c |
1162b |
768a |
1336d |
46.7 |
*** |
Cold carcase (kg) |
207a |
237bd |
215c |
235b |
208a |
242d |
2.3 |
** |
Carcase gain (g/d) |
314a |
618b |
391c |
599b |
323ac |
673d |
23.0 |
** |
Kill-out rate (g/kg) |
484 |
500 |
477 |
504 |
486 |
501 |
3.2 |
NS |
Conformation |
2.1 |
2.8 |
2.3 |
2.7 |
2.1 |
2.7 |
0.12 |
NS |
Fatness score |
3.5 |
4.1 |
3.3 |
4.0 |
3.5 |
3.8 |
0.10 |
NS |
Kidney and channel fat (kg) |
5.8 |
7.1 |
6.1 |
7.6 |
5.8 |
6.8 |
0.38 |
NS |
FCE (kg TDMI/kg LWG) |
8.2a |
6.2bc |
7.6ac |
7.5ac |
9.0a |
5.8b |
0.53 |
* |
FCE (kg TDMI/kg cg) |
21.4a |
12.6b |
19.4a |
14.3b |
21.2a |
11.5b |
1.02 |
** |
a,b,c,d - Means within the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P< 0.05); LWG - Liveweight gain; cg - Carcase gain
Table 2.6. Effect of silage additive and concentrate supplementation on feed intake and animal performance (individual diets) - Experiment 2.90.
Silage (S) |
Untreated |
Untreated |
Formic acid |
Formic acid |
Inoculant |
Inoculant |
s.e.m. |
Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Concentrate (C) (kg/d) |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
SxC |
SxC |
Silage DMI (kg/d) |
7.06 |
6.17 |
7.94 |
6.71 |
7.35 |
6.30 |
0.104 |
NS |
Concentrate DMI (kg/d) |
0 |
2.5 |
0 |
2.5 |
0 |
2.5 |
- |
- |
Total DMI (kg/d) |
7.06 |
8.67 |
7.94 |
9.21 |
7.35 |
8.80 |
0.104 |
NS |
Starting LW (kg) |
424 |
424 |
423 |
424 |
425 |
425 |
1.0 |
NS |
Final LW (kg) |
494 |
526 |
505 |
529 |
497 |
524 |
3.7 |
NS |
LWG (g/d) |
829 |
1208 |
985 |
1255 |
868 |
1187 |
40.8 |
NS |
Cold carcase (kg) |
247 |
269 |
252 |
272 |
246 |
270 |
2.1 |
NS |
Carcase gain (g/d) |
416 |
675 |
487 |
715 |
407 |
683 |
24.3 |
NS |
Conformation |
2.6 |
3.0 |
2.9 |
2.9 |
2.7 |
3.0 |
0.09 |
NS |
Fatness score |
3.7 |
4.2 |
4.0 |
4.1 |
3.8 |
4.1 |
0.12 |
NS |
Kill-out rate (g/kg) |
501 |
511 |
499 |
513 |
495 |
515 |
2.9 |
NS |
FCE (kg TDMI/kg LWG) |
8.94 |
7.34 |
8.23 |
7.45 |
8.95 |
7.52 |
0.337 |
NS |
FCE (kg total DMI/kg cg) |
15.57 |
11.90 |
14.49 |
12.08 |
16.32 |
11.90 |
0.603 |
NS |
Table 2.7. Untreated grass composition at ensiling - mean (s.d.)
|
|
Experiment 2.91 |
Experiment 2.92 |
|---|---|---|
DM (g/kg) |
144 (9.9) |
131 (18.3) |
Crude protein (g/kg DM) |
150 (16.1) |
194 (25.1) |
IVDMD (g/kg) |
754 (13.7) |
729 (27.8) |
WSC (g/L) |
14 (0.7) |
8 (3.3) |
Buffering capacity (mEq/kg DM) |
501 (43.2) |
489 (40.9) |
Ash (g/kg DM) |
94 (5.6) |
118 (20.7) |
Table 2.8 Conservation efficiency and effluent production - Experiment 2.91
|
|
Untreated (Control) |
L. plantarum (DCU101) |
L. plantarum (G24) |
Ped. Spp |
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grass DM ensiled (t) |
26.128 |
25.464 |
24.650 |
24.753 |
24.730 |
Edible silage DM recovered (t) |
17.612 |
18.645 |
18.022 |
16.801 |
15.915 |
Proportion of DM recovered as edible silage |
0.67 |
0.73 |
0.73 |
0.68 |
0.64 |
Inedible silage DM recovered (t) |
0.622 |
0.555 |
0.560 |
0.638 |
0.702 |
Proportion of DM recovered as inedible silage |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.03 |
Total DM recovered as edible plus inedible silage (t) |
18.274 |
18.700 |
18.582 |
17.409 |
16.617 |
Proportion of DM recovered as edible plus inedible silage |
0.70 |
0.75 |
0.75 |
0.71 |
0.67 |
Effluent volume (l/tonne) |
266 |
367 |
371 |
389 |
374 |
Effluent DM (g/kg) |
41 |
49 |
44 |
55 |
49 |
Total DM output in effluent (t) |
2.099 |
3.431 |
2.625 |
4.157 |
3.295 |
Proportion of DM lost as effluent |
0.08 |
0.13 |
0.11 |
0.17 |
0.13 |
Proportion of DM lost during ensilage as invisible losses |
0.22 |
0.12 |
0.14 |
0.12 |
0.20 |
Table 2.9 Conservation efficiency and effluent production - Experiment 2.92
|
|
Untreated (Control) |
L. plantarum (DCU101) |
L. plantarum (G24) |
Ped. Spp |
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grass DM ensiled (t) |
24.628 |
26.132 |
26.496 |
26.680 |
25.020 |
Edible silage DM recovered (t) |
15.977 |
18.261 |
18.797 |
19.101 |
19.008 |
Proportion recovered as edible silage |
0.65 |
0.70 |
0.71 |
0.72 |
0.76 |
Inedible silage DM recovered (t) |
0.481 |
0.371 |
0.571 |
0.583 |
0.503 |
Proportion recovered as inedible silage |
0.02 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
Total DM recovered as edible and inedible silage (t) |
16.458 |
18.632 |
19.568 |
19.684 |
19.511 |
Proportion recovered as edible and inedible silage |
0.67 |
0.72 |
0.73 |
0.74 |
0.78 |
Effluent volume (l/tonne) |
318 |
317 |
338 |
317 |
275 |
Effluent DM (g/kg) |
45 |
43 |
46 |
50 |
42 |
Total DM output in effluent (t) |
2.690 |
2.562 |
2.985 |
2.916 |
2.079 |
Proportion of DM lost as effluent |
0.11 |
0.10 |
0.11 |
0.11 |
0.08 |
Proportion of DM lost as invisible losses |
0.22 |
0.18 |
0.16 |
0.15 |
0.14 |
Table 2.10. Mean (s.d.) chemical composition of the silages ‘as fed’ to the animals in the growth study (Day 290 to 402 post ensiling) (g/kg DM unless otherwise stated) - Experiment 2.91
|
|
Untreated (Control) |
L. plantarum (DCU101) |
L. plantarum (G24) |
Ped. Spp |
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DM (g/kg) |
174 (6.4) |
176 (5.3) |
176 (6.9) |
169 (7.0) |
171 (8.2) |
Crude protein |
142 (8.2) |
140 (6.1) |
142 (4.0) |
144 (6.1) |
142 (6.3) |
in-vitro DMD (g/kg) |
714 (6.9) |
709 (10.6) |
721 (7.5) |
713 (8.0) |
711 (9.0) |
Ash |
91 (5.7) |
91 (8.6) |
91 (7.3) |
94 (6.4) |
89 (3.5) |
DOMD |
643 (5.8) |
638 (11.0) |
650 (4.5) |
641 (5.8) |
635 (17.0) |
pH |
3.95 (0.186) |
3.93 (0.129) |
3.90 (0.161) |
4.03 (0.161) |
3.99 (0.130) |
Lactic acid |
116 (28.2) |
129 (22.2) |
130 (21.6) |
109 (17.3) |
115 (19.4) |
Acetic acid |
34 (18.8) |
32 (15.0) |
28 (15.4) |
39 (13.7) |
38 (15.3) |
Propionic acid |
2 (1.2) |
1 (0.6) |
1 (0.7) |
2 (0.7) |
2 (0.5) |
Butyric acid |
1 (0.1) |
1 (0.1) |
1 (0.1) |
1 (0.1) |
1 (0.1) |
Total VFA |
37 (20.0) |
34 (16.0) |
30 (16.1) |
42 (14.4) |
41 (15.9) |
Ethanol |
11 (1.5) |
13 (5.1) |
9 (1.2) |
12 (2.4) |
12 (1.2) |
NH3-N (g/kg total N) |
87 (7.4) |
85 (7.6) |
75 (8.0) |
85 (9.7) |
86 (6.8) |
WSC (g/L) |
3 (0.7) |
4 (0.6) |
4 (0.5) |
3 (0.0) |
4 (0.8) |
WSC (g/kg DM) |
16 (3.0) |
18 (2.5) |
17 (3.0) |
15 (0.7) |
17 (3.9) |
Table 2.11. Mean (s.d.) chemical composition of the silages as fed in the animal growth study (g/kg DM unless otherwise stated) - Experiment 2.92
|
|
Untreated (Control) |
L. plantarum (DCU101) |
L. plantarum (G24) |
Ped. Spp |
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DM (g/kg) |
161 (6.3) |
162 (5.8) |
161 (6.1) |
166 (7.0) |
167 (8.9) |
Crude protein |
162 (5.3) |
177 (14.3) |
172 (5.7) |
169 (7.3) |
168 (6.8) |
In-vitro DMD (g/kg) |
672 (22.9) |
694 (19.1) |
668 (27.9) |
694 (24.0) |
683 (12.0) |
Ash |
92 (10.0) |
95 (4.2) |
97 (5.1) |
94 (4.0) |
97 (5.7) |
DOMD |
594 (23.3) |
613 (17.7) |
596 (19.2) |
617 (20.9) |
603 (11.0) |
pH |
4.17 (0.399) |
4.11 (0.135) |
4.14 (0.228) |
4.14 (0.230) |
4.11 (0.227) |
Lactic acid |
85 (34.8) |
87 (21.1) |
73 (25.8) |
106 (14.5) |
73 (23.9) |
Acetic acid |
37 (15.6) |
40 (5.2) |
41 (10.6) |
36 (14.1) |
31 (13.7) |
Propionic acid |
4 (4.1) |
4 (1.1) |
4 (2.9) |
4 (3.0) |
4 (2.9) |
Butyric acid |
3 (6.0) |
4 (5.0) |
4 (6.4) |
3 (3.3) |
5 (4.6) |
NH3-N (g/kg total N) |
113 (71.3) |
111 (14.8) |
107 (47.9) |
97 (30.7) |
112 (38.4) |
Ethanol |
7 (1.4) |
9 (5.6) |
8 (0.7) |
8 (2.1) |
6 (1.7) |
WSC (g/L) |
3 (0.7) |
3 (0.6) |
2 (0.7) |
2 (0.8) |
2 (1.1) |
WSC (g/kg DM) |
16 (3.1) |
15 (3.0) |
10 (3.7) |
11 (3.6) |
9 (5.5) |
Table 2.12. Silage additive effects on feed intake and animal performance - Experiment 2.91
|
|
Untreated (Control) |
L. plantarum (DCU101) |
L. plantarum (G24) |
Ped. Spp |
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp. |
Sem |
Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Silage DMI (kg/d) |
5.82 |
5.77 |
5.95 |
5.60 |
5.83 |
0.149 |
NS |
Concentrate DMI (kg/d) |
1.70 |
1.70 |
1.70 |
1.70 |
1.70 |
- |
- |
Total DMI (kg/d) |
7.52 |
7.48 |
7.65 |
7.30 |
7.53 |
0.149 |
NS |
Starting LW (kg) |
426 |
426 |
425 |
427 |
429 |
0.7 |
NS |
Final LW (kg) |
535 |
523 |
526 |
536 |
536 |
4.8 |
NS |
LWG (g/d) |
977 |
867 |
899 |
966 |
960 |
47.5 |
NS |
Carcase weight (g/d) |
266 |
263 |
265 |
270 |
264 |
2.6 |
NS |
Estimated carcase gain (g/d) |
476 |
443 |
469 |
501 |
444 |
23.3 |
NS |
Kill-out rate (g/kg) |
498 |
502 |
505 |
504 |
493 |
3.8 |
NS |
Carcase conformation |
2.8 |
2.8 |
2.9 |
2.8 |
2.6 |
0.12 |
NS |
Fat score |
4.1 |
4.1 |
4.0 |
4.4 |
3.8 |
0.1 |
* |
Kidney and channel fat wt. (kg) |
8.9 |
8.8 |
8.6 |
9.5 |
9.8 |
0.64 |
NS |
Feed conversion efficiency (FCE)
kg total DMI/kg LWG1 |
7.60 |
8.72 |
8.70 |
7.76 |
8.03 |
0.386 |
NS |
kg total DMI/kg cg2 |
15.82 |
17.42 |
16.90 |
14.95 |
17.59 |
0.912 |
NS |
1 Liveweight gain, 2Carcass weight gain
Table 2.13. Silage additive treatment effects on feed intake and animal performance - Experiment 2.92
|
|
Untreated (Control) |
L. plantarum (DCU101) |
L. plantarum (G24) |
Ped. Spp |
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp. |
Sem |
Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Silage DMI (kg/d) |
5.97 |
5.91 |
5.60 |
5.85 |
5.87 |
0.135 |
NS |
Concentrate DMI (kg/d) |
1.70 |
1.70 |
1.70 |
1.70 |
1.70 |
- |
- |
Total DMI (kg/d) |
7.67 |
7.61 |
7.30 |
7.55 |
7.57 |
0.135 |
NS |
Starting LW (kg) |
418 |
417 |
417 |
417 |
418 |
1.7 |
NS |
Final LW (kg) |
522 |
518 |
515 |
517 |
522 |
4.1 |
NS |
LWG (g/d) |
927 |
904 |
873 |
889 |
935 |
32.6 |
NS |
Cold carcase weight (kg) |
263 |
261 |
263 |
263 |
266 |
2.4 |
NS |
Estimated carcase gain (g/d) |
478 |
473 |
485 |
483 |
506 |
18.6 |
NS |
Kill-out rate (g/kg) |
504 |
505 |
510 |
508 |
509 |
4.3 |
NS |
Carcase conformation score |
2.4 |
2.3 |
2.5 |
2.4 |
2.5 |
0.14 |
NS |
Fatness score |
4.1 |
4.2 |
4.3 |
4.1 |
4.1 |
0.09 |
NS |
Feed conversion efficiency (FCE)
kg total DMI/kg LWG1 |
8.4 |
8.7 |
8.5 |
8.6 |
8.2 |
0.33 |
NS |
kg total DMI/kg cg2 |
16.5 |
16.3 |
15.4 |
16.0 |
15.2 |
0.69 |
NS |
1 Liveweight gain, 2Carcass weight gain
Table 2.14. Chemical and microbiological composition of silage after 32 days ensilage.
|
|
No additive |
Formic acid |
Sodium formate(3 ml) |
Sodium formate(6 ml) |
L.plant |
L.plant + sod. formate |
s.e.d. |
Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DM (g/kg) |
149 |
160 |
166 |
167 |
167 |
163 |
1.48 |
*** |
pH |
5.4 |
4.6 |
5.1 |
5.2 |
5.2 |
5.3 |
.058 |
*** |
NH3-N (g/kg N) |
148 |
67 |
145 |
148 |
165 |
149 |
5.37 |
*** |
Lactic acid (g/kg DM) |
29 |
43 |
55 |
56 |
39 |
44 |
2.94 |
*** |
Ethanol (g/kg DM) |
13 |
15 |
15 |
13 |
13 |
16 |
4.21 |
NS |
Acetic acid (g/kg DM) |
44 |
24 |
47 |
47 |
47 |
46 |
2.52 |
*** |
Propionic acid (g/kg DM) |
5 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
.624 |
* |
Butyric acid (g/kg DM) |
17 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
7 |
1.14 |
* |
Lactic acid bacteria1 |
7.91 |
7.81 |
7.83 |
7.95 |
7.55 |
7.85 |
0.12 |
NS |
Enterobacteria1 |
2.83 |
2.75 |
2.85 |
2.85 |
2.89 |
2.83 |
.209 |
NS |
Clostridia1 |
3.80 |
4.40 |
3.74 |
4.09 |
5.53 |
3.71 |
.697 |
** |
1Log10 CFU/g crop
Table 2.15. Conservation characteristics in Experiments 2.95 and 2.96.
EXPERIMENT 1: [DO=day of opening; DMR=DM recovered; CP=crude protein; IVDMD-In-vitro DMD; Lact=lactic acid; Acet=acetic acid; Prop=propionic acid; Butyr=butyric acid]
|
No additive
|
Na formate
|
L. plantarum
|
Na formate
|
Formic acid
|
Significance
|
EXPERIMENT 2: [DO=day of opening; CP=crude protein; IVDMD-In-vitro DMD; Lact=lactic acid; Acet=acetic acid; Prop=propionic acid; Butyr=butyric acid]
|
No additive
|
Na formate
|
L. plantarum
|
Na formate
|
Formic acid
|
Significance
|
1=g/kg; 2=g/kg DM; 3=g/kg N
Table 3.1. Aerobic stability of silages in Experiment 3.1.
Additive applied |
None |
Sulphites (ml/kg) |
Sodium chloride (g/kg) |
SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rate applied |
|
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
2 |
4 |
|
Days to pH rise |
3.0 |
6.0 |
10.7 |
12.7 |
4.0 |
5.3 |
0.33*** |
Days to pH max. |
9.7 |
11.7 |
12.0 |
12.7 |
10.0 |
10.3 |
0.43** |
Max pH rise |
5.1 |
4.8 |
2.3 |
0.4 |
4.9 |
4.7 |
0.49*** |
Days to oC rise |
1.3 |
3.0 |
7.7 |
11.7 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
1.08*** |
Days to oC max |
6.3 |
9.3 |
10.3 |
12.0 |
6.0 |
7.0 |
0.58*** |
Max. oC rise |
25 |
26 |
19 |
5 |
27 |
24 |
4.2* |
Accumulated oC rise to day 5 |
85 |
32 |
9 |
7 |
80 |
56 |
9.1*** |
Table 3.2. Aerobic stability of silages (Experiments 3.2 to 3.6).
Experiment 3.2 |
Experiment 3.3 |
|---|
Additive applied |
|
Sulphites (ml/kg) |
|
|
Sulphites (ml/kg) |
|
Rate applied |
None |
0.4 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
SEM |
None |
0.4 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
SEM |
Days to pH rise |
4.0 |
7.5 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.49 |
4.0 |
7.5 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.49 |
Days to pH max. |
6.5 |
8.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.11*** |
8.0 |
8.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.11*** |
Max. pH rise |
4..9 |
1.5 |
0 |
0 |
0.17*** |
4.5 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.17*** |
Days to oC rise |
2.0 |
3.5 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
1.43 |
3.5 |
4.5 |
5.0 |
2.0 |
1.43 |
Days to oC max. |
6.0 |
7.5 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.39*** |
7.5 |
8.0 |
8.0 |
9.0 |
0.39*** |
Max. oC rise |
3.4 |
28 |
4 |
4 |
3.5 |
32 |
21 |
12 |
3 |
3.5 |
Accumulated oC rise to day 5 |
76 |
12 |
11 |
9 |
2.3*** |
22 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
2.3*** |
Experiment 3.4 |
Experiment 3.5 |
|---|
Additive applied |
|
Sulphites (ml/kg) |
|
|
Sulphites (ml/kg) |
|
Rate applied |
None |
0.4 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
SEM |
None |
0.4 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
SEM |
Days to pH rise |
5.0 |
7.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.49 |
7.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.49 |
Days to pH max. |
8.0 |
8.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.11*** |
8.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.11 |
Max. pH rise |
4.4 |
2.2 |
0 |
0.2 |
0.17*** |
2.1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.17*** |
Days to oC rise |
2.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
1.43 |
4.5 |
6.5 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
1.43 |
Days to oC max. |
8.0 |
8.0 |
8.0 |
3.5 |
0.39*** |
8.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.39*** |
Max. oC rise |
36 |
27 |
6 |
4 |
3.5 |
25 |
10 |
3 |
3 |
3.5 |
Accumulated oC rise to day 5 |
40 |
12 |
11 |
12 |
2.3*** |
11 |
8 |
10 |
9 |
2.3*** |
Experiment 3.6
Additive applied |
None |
Sulphites (ml/kg) |
SEM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rate applied |
|
0.4 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
|
Days to pH rise |
6.5 |
8.5 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.49 |
Days to pH max. |
8.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
9.0 |
0.11*** |
Max. pH rise |
3.1 |
0.2 |
0 |
0.1 |
0.17*** |
Days to oC rise |
5.0 |
5.0 |
6.5 |
6.5 |
1.43 |
Days to oC max. |
6.0 |
8.0 |
8.0 |
8.0 |
0.39*** |
Max. oC rise |
22 |
20 |
13 |
7 |
3.5 |
Accumulated oC rise to day 5 |
15 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
2.3*** |
Table 3.3. In vitro rumen DM digestibility (IVDMD) and supernatant pH.
Rumen liquor source |
Sheep |
Steer offered silage |
Steer offered silage plus conc | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sulphites (g/kg fresh silage) |
DMD1 |
pH2 |
DMD1 |
pH2 |
DMD1 |
pH2 |
0 |
630 |
7.03 |
668 |
7.22 |
619 |
7.27 |
0.4 |
639 |
7.08 |
672 |
7.25 |
618 |
7.26 |
0.8 |
642 |
7.16 |
654 |
7.25 |
636 |
7.26 |
1.2 |
625 |
7.25 |
639 |
7.2 |
626 |
7.30 |
2.0 |
623 |
7.20 |
611 |
7.29 |
622 |
7.26 |
4.0 |
608 |
7.26 |
574 |
7.24 |
592 |
7.27 |
SEM (DMD) : Main effect of rumen liquor = 3.5 (P<0.01); main effect of dose rate = 4.9 (P<0.001); interaction = 8.5 (P<0.001); SEM (pH) : Main effect of rumen liquor = 0.007 (P<0.001); main effect of dose rate = 0.011 (P<0.001); interaction = 0.019 (P<0.001)
1Phase I of Tilley and Terry (1963) g/kg; 2supernatant following centrifugation after 48 h incubation
Table 3.4. Aerobic stability of silages in Experiment 3.8.
Crop |
|
Grass |
|
|
|
Maize |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Additive at ensiling |
None |
Sulphites |
SEM |
None |
|
Sulphites |
|
SEM | ||
Rate applied |
|
Low |
Med. |
High |
|
|
Low |
Med. |
High |
|
Days to pH rise |
4.3 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.3 |
0.27** |
6.3 |
5.8 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
0.44* |
Days to pH max. |
6.0 |
6.0 |
6.0 |
5.5 |
0.14 |
8.0 |
8.0 |
7.8 |
8.0 |
0.13 |
Max. pH rise |
3.9 |
4.2 |
4.3 |
4.4 |
0.09* |
3.8 |
4.8 |
4.6 |
4.9 |
0.23* |
Days to oC rise |
2.0 |
1.8 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
0.24 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
1.8 |
0.24 |
Days to oC max. |
4.0 |
4.8 |
3.0 |
3.3 |
0.27** |
6.5 |
6.3 |
7.5 |
4.8 |
0.60** |
Max. oC rise |
22 |
19 |
17 |
19 |
1.9 |
23 |
23 |
18 |
20 |
1.6 |
Accumulated oC rise to day 5 |
44 |
55 |
48 |
55 |
3.0 |
21 |
29 |
46 |
48 |
5.4* |
Table 3.5. Microbiological enumeration (log10 cfu/g forage) and forage temperature (mean + sd) at selected times in Experiment 3.9.
Forage wilting (h) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
24 |
24 |
24 |
48 |
48 |
48 |
Rate of sulphites (ml/kg) |
0 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
Lactic acid bacteria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grass at harvest |
4.30 |
|
|
7.54 |
|
|
8.21 |
|
|
24 h later |
7.51 |
8.32 |
8.03 |
8.21 |
8.09 |
8.20 |
8.38 |
8.34 |
8.34 |
Silage (28d)ensiled at 0 h |
8.24 |
8.22 |
8.19 |
8.49 |
8.56 |
8.53 |
>9 |
>9 |
>9 |
Ensiled at 24h |
8.51 |
>9 |
8.50 |
>9 |
>9 |
>9 |
>9 |
>9 |
>9 |
Yeast |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grass at harvest |
5.42 |
|
|
7.44 |
|
|
>9 |
|
|
24 h later |
6.98 |
5.37 |
5.36 |
8.87 |
8.63 |
8.05 |
8.08 |
8.23 |
8.08 |
Silage (28d)ensiled at 0 h |
7.33 |
7.58 |
8.31 |
8.50 |
8.62 |
8.43 |
9.02 |
9.30 |
9.19 |
Ensiled at 24h |
9.21 |
8.92 |
8.72 |
8.86 |
8.93 |
>9 |
9.37 |
>9 |
>9 |
Forage temperature (oC) At ensiling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 h delay |
19(0.6) |
21(0.6) |
19(0.6) |
17(0.6) |
18(2.1) |
20(0.0) |
21(0.6) |
21(0.6) |
22(0.6) |
24 h delay |
31(2.3) |
28(2.0) |
27(1.0) |
31(1.7) |
29(3.8) |
29(0.6) |
26(1.0) |
31(1.2) |
26(4.9) |
Table 3.6. Chemical analysis of silages after 10 days in the aerobic stability unit.
Wilting (h) |
Delay (h) |
Sulphite rate |
Day to pH rise |
Day to pH max |
Max pH rise |
Days to temp. rise |
Days to temp. max |
Max temp. rise |
Accum. OC to day 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 |
0 |
None |
2.0 (0.00) |
5.7 (0.58) |
4.7 (0.06) |
2.0 (0.00) |
5.0 (0.00) |
28 (3.5) |
77 (.9.3) |
|
|
|
Med |
2.3 (0.58) |
5.7 (0.58) |
4.4 (0.42) |
2.0 (0.00) |
4.0 (1.00) |
21 (2.0) |
68 (7.4) |
|
|
|
High |
2.0 (0.00) |
6.0 (0.00) |
4.5 (0.72) |
2.0 (0.00) |
5.3 (0.58) |
27 (5.7) |
74 (11.0) |
0 |
24 |
None |
3.7 (0.58) |
6.0 (1.00) |
4.3 (0.25) |
3.0 (0.00) |
5.0 (0.00) |
22 (4.4) |
54 (15.0) |
|
|
|
Med |
5.0 (0.00) |
7.0 (0.00) |
4.4 (0.15) |
2.7 (1.15) |
6.3 (0.58) |
26 (2.1) |
33 (7.9) |
|
|
|
High |
4.3 (0.58) |
6.7 (0.58) |
4.7 (0.12) |
2.0 (0.0) |
5.7 (0.58) |
26 (3.6) |
45 (17.9) |
24 |
0 |
None |
3.0 (1.00) |
6.7 (0.58) |
4.7 (0.12) |
2.0 (0.00) |
5.0 (1.00) |
32 (4.4) |
66 (22.2) |
|
|
|
Med |
3.7 (0.58) |
6.7 (0.58) |
4.6 (0.10) |
2.3 (0.58) |
6.3 (0.58) |
31 (4.0) |
57 (17.4) |
|
|
|
High |
4.0 (0.00) |
6.7 ( 0.58) |
4.5 (0.56) |
2.0 (0.00) |
5.3 (0.58) |
36 (2.6) |
69 (14.6) |
24 |
24 |
None |
4.7(1.15) |
7.0 (0.00) |
4.2 (0.15) |
1.0 (0.00) |
7.0 (0.00) |
31 (1.7) |
32 (9.2) |
|
|
|
Med |
4.7 (0.58 |
7.0 (0.00 |
4.0 (0.20) |
1.3 (0.58) |
7.0 (0.00) |
31 (4.4) |
29 (6.5) |
|
|
|
High |
3.3 (1.15) |
7.0 (0.00) |
4.1 (0.21) |
1.3 (0.58) |
6.3 (1.15) |
29 (1.5) |
39 (17.8) |
48 |
0 |
None |
2.0 (0.00) |
9.0 (0.00) |
3.9 (0.25) |
2.7 (2.90) |
9.0 (0.00) |
27 (2.9) |
15 (4.7) |
|
|
|
Med |
2.3 (0.58) |
9.0 (0.00) |
4.0 (0.69) |
1.3 (0.58) |
8.3 (0.58) |
23 (3.2) |
19 (4.4) |
|
|
|
High |
1.7 (0.58) |
9.0 (0.0) |
4.4 (0.12) |
2.0 (1.00) |
8.0 (1.00) |
28 (2.6) |
17 (3.8) |
48 |
24 |
None |
1.0 (0) |
9.0 (0) |
3.5 (0.61) |
1.3 (0.58) |
9.0 (0) |
25 (3.2) |
17 (3.8) |
|
|
|
Med |
1.0 (0) |
9.0 (0) |
4.1 (0.17) |
1.3 (0.58) |
8l.3 (0.58) |
24 (6.5) |
25 (8.1) |
|
|
|
High |
1.0 (0) |
9.0 (0) |
3.1 (1.01) |
1.7 (0.58) |
8.7 (0.58) |
20 (4.2) |
17 (7.0) |
SEM – wilting |
|
0.14*** |
0.10*** |
0.08*** |
0.20 |
0.15*** |
0.9*** |
2.8*** | |
|
|
- delay |
|
0.11*** |
0.08*** |
0.07*** |
0.16 |
0.12*** |
0.7 |
2.3*** |
- sulphites |
|
0.14* |
0.10 |
0.08 |
0.20 |
0.15 |
0.9 |
2.8 | |
Table 3.7. Chemical composition and conservation characteristics of silages in Experiment 3.10.
Crop |
|
|
|
Grass |
|
|
|
Maize |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Additive |
None |
Sulphites |
SEM |
None |
Sulphites |
SEM | |||||
Rate applied |
|
Low |
Med. |
High |
|
|
Low |
Med. |
High |
| |
DM1 |
146 |
145 |
145 |
150 |
1.7 |
171 |
176 |
173 |
176 |
2.9 | |
DMD1 |
610 |
610 |
624 |
620 |
11.0 |
712 |
716 |
722 |
722 |
3.8 | |
C. protein2 |
171 |
172 |
174 |
172 |
1.4 |
141 |
139 |
139 |
137 |
2.5 | |
NH3-N3 |
103 |
109 |
112 |
111 |
2.4 |
69 |
64 |
67 |
71 |
1.4* | |
PH |
4.58 |
4.53 |
4.45 |
4.33 |
0.039** |
3.70 |
3.73 |
3.70 |
3.70 |
0.013 | |
Lactic acid2 |
35 |
27 |
56 |
71 |
5.6** |
126 |
126 |
136 |
126 |
3.7 | |
Ethanol2 |
18 |
18 |
19 |
19 |
0.6 |
26 |
25 |
29 |
29 |
3.5 | |
Acetic acid2 |
69 |
65 |
54 |
42 |
2.3*** |
54 |
43 |
40 |
35 |
3.7* | |
Propionic acid2 |
2.3 |
2.2 |
2.3 |
2.1 |
0.17 |
2.8 |
2.1 |
1.2 |
0.7 |
0.43* | |
Butyric acid2 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.16 |
0.2 |
0 |
0.1- |
0 |
0.08 | |
WSC2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
17 |
16 |
17 |
14 |
1.2 | |
Effluent production4 |
115 |
116 |
118 |
110 |
4.6 |
162 |
155 |
159 |
151 |
4.9 | |
Silage DM recovery1 |
857 |
851 |
857 |
895 |
11.8 |
792 |
821 |
806 |
828 |
16.0 | |
1g/kg, 2g/kg DM, 3g/kg N, 4g/kg grass
Table 3.8. Chemical composition of silages in Experiment 3.11.
| Wilting | Delay | Sulphite | DM | pH | Lactic acid | Ethanol | Acetic | WSC | NH3-N | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (h) | (h) | Rate | (g/kg) | (g/kg DM) | (g/kg DM) | (g/kg DM) | (g/kg DM) | (g/kg N) | ||
| 0 | 0 | None | 167 | 3.93 | 133 | 9 | 17 | 18 | 74 | |
| Med | 165 | 3.93 | 138 | 8 | 19 | 19 | 76 | |||
| High | 162 | 3.93 | 135 | 11 | 16 | 21 | 79 | |||
| 0 | 24 | None | 158 | 4.20 | 106 | 12 | 23 | 11 | 94 | |
| Med | 153 | 4.13 | 125 | 14 | 23 | 15 | 82 | |||
| High | 157 | 4.20 | 122 | 13 | 22 | 11 | 101 | |||
| 24 | 0 | None | 193 | 4.13 | 127 | 6 | 23 | 13 | 99 | |
| Med | 192 | 4.13 | 136 | 6 | 19 | 17 | 114 | |||
| High | 191 | 4.23 | 129 | 6 | 18 | 12 | 115 | |||
| 24 | 24 | None | 184 | 4.57 | 104 | 12 | 30 | 10 | 136 | |
| Med | 184 | 4.57 | 104 | 12 | 35 | 7 | 154 | |||
| High | 185 | 4.60 | 106 | 11 | 29 | 8 | 145 | |||
| 48 | 0 | None | 311 | 4.57 | 89 | 3 | 22 | 15 | 124 | |
| Med | 307 | 4.57 | 89 | 3 | 28 | 15 | 118 | |||
| High | 301 | 4.57 | 94 | 3 | 30 | 17 | 126 | |||
| 48 | 24 | None | 300 | 4.63 | 83 | 4 | 34 | 13 | 144 | |
| Med | 297 | 4.67 | 74 | 4 | 41 | 11 | 153 | |||
| High | 306 | 4.63 | 81 | 3 | 36 | 13 | 154 | |||
| SEM – Wilting | 0.9*** | 0.019*** | 1.7*** | 0.3*** | 0.9*** | 0.5*** | 2.8*** | |||
| - delay | 0.7*** | 0.016*** | 1.4*** | 0.2*** | 0.7*** | 0.4*** | 2.3*** | |||
| - sulphites | 0.9 | 0.019 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 2.8 | |||
Table 3.9. Silage chemical composition.
| Aerobiosis Pre-ensiling (h) | Application rate of sulphites | Lactic acid (g/kg DM) | Acetic Acid (g/kg DM) | Ethanol (g/kg DM) | IVDMD (g/kg) | NH3 (g/kg DM) | DM (g/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 88 | 26 | 7 | 713 | 14 | 262 |
| Low | 91 | 26 | 8 | 709 | 16 | 259 | |
| Med | 79 | 19 | 9 | 723 | 18 | 258 | |
| High | 54 | 22 | 11 | 731 | 19 | 263 | |
| 24 | 0 | 62 | 32 | 9 | 684 | 12 | 248 |
| Low | 60 | 33 | 10 | 700 | 15 | 244 | |
| Med | 58 | 28 | 11 | 706 | 16 | 251 | |
| High | 54 | 27 | 10 | 701 | 18 | 249 | |
| SEM1 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 7.5 | 0.7 | 3.8 | |
| Signif. 1 | *** | NS | * | NS | NS | NS |
1Interaction
Table 4.1. Default values in predicting feed output.
| Grazed1 | Hay2 | Grass silage2 | Maize1 | Cereal1,3 grain | Fodder1,3 Beet roots | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional4 | Big bale | ||||||||
| Unwilted | Wilted | Unwilted | Wilted | ||||||
| Crop yield5 (t DM/ha) | 11.1 | 4.5 | Tab 4.2 | Tab 4.2 | Tab 4.2 | Tab 4.2 | 11.5 | Tab 4.3 | 13.1 (15.4) |
| Crop dry matter (DM; g/kg) | 170 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 250 | 860 (500) | 160 (147) |
| Crop DMD (g/kg) | 780 | 620 | Tab 4.2 | Tab 4.2 | Tab 4.2 | Tab 4.2 | 730 | Tab 4.3 (660) | 800 (740) |
| Efficiency of grazing (DM; g/kg) | 740 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Field losses (DM; g/kg) | - | 200 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 70 | - | - | - |
| Storage losses (DM; g.kg) | - | 50 | 200 | 100 | 170 | 80 | 160 | 30 (120) | 160 (200) |
| Units digestibility loss (g/kg) | - | 50 | 20 | 30 | 20 | 30 | 20 | -(20) | 20 (20) |
| Feed ME (MJ/kg DM) | 11.1 | 8.8 | -6 | -6 | -6 | -6 | 10.6 | Tab 4.3 (10.0) | 12.1 (10.9) |
| Feed output to consume | |||||||||
| -DM (t/ha) | 8.2 | 3.4 | --- | --- | --- | --- | 9.7 | (10.0) | 11.0 (13.1) |
| -digestible DM (t/ha) | 6.4 | 1.9 | --- | --- | --- | --- | 6.9 | 8.6 (9.4) | |
| -ME (GJ/ha) | 91 | 30 | --- | --- | --- | --- | 102 | --- | 133 (143) |
1annual output; 2single harvest output; 3whole crop silage values in parentheses; 4single, double or precision-chop; 5harvestable; 6Table 2 + ME prediction equation
Table 4.2. Equations used for predicting grass dry matter (DM) yield and digestibility of perennial ryegrass plus white clover and old permanent swards grown for silage.
| Harvest | Default date | Yield (t DM/ha) | Digestibility (g/kg) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regrowing | Constant | Coefficient1 | Constant | Coefficient1 | |
| Perennial ryegrass + white clover | |||||
| 1 | Apr 1 | -0.87 | 0.13 | 917 | -2.97 |
| 2 | May 25 | -0.88 | 0.13 | 802 | -1.34 |
| 3 | Jul 6 | -0.74 | 0.10 | 729 | 0.91 |
| 4 | Aug 15 | -0.07 | 0.07 | 744 | 0.19 |
| Old permanent sward | |||||
| 1 | Apr 1 | -0.96 | 0.13 | 896 | -2.94 |
| 2 | May 25 | -0.86 | 0.12 | 789 | -1.51 |
| 3 | Jul 6 | -0.59 | 0.09 | 723 | 0.89 |
| 4 | Aug 15 | -0.10 | 0.06 | 704 | 1.47 |
1
multiply by number of days regrowingTable 4.3. Defaults for cereal outputs
|
|
Wheat |
Barley |
Oats | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Winter |
Spring |
Winter |
Spring |
Winter |
Spring |
Yield of harvested grain (t DM/ha) |
7.4 |
6.4 |
6.4 |
5.3 |
6.4 |
5.3 |
Grain DMD (g/kg) |
860 |
860 |
860 |
850 |
790 |
790 |
Grain ME (MJ/kg DM) |
13.4 |
13.2 |
13.0 |
12.8 |
11.7 |
11.6 |
Table 4.4. Unit cost (£/GJ ME consumed) of providing cattle with a range of home produced feeds.
| Good management and favourable growth conditions | Variable conditions | |
|---|---|---|
| Grazed Grass | 3.2 | 3.2-4.9 |
| 1st-cut silage (30 May) | 7.0 | 5.6-9.6 |
| 2nd-cut silage (20 July) | 7.7 | 7.7- 11.8 |
| Maize silage | 7.7 | 6.3-12.2 |
| Fodder beet roots | 10.9 | 10.9-14.2 |
| Rolled barley (spring) | 11.8 | - |
| Rolled barley + EU area aid1 | 8.4 | - |
| Rolled wheat (winter) | 10.5 | - |
| Rolled wheat + EU area aid1 | 8.1 | - |
| Whole crop wheat silage2 | 7.8 | - |
| Whole crop wheat silage2 + EU area aid | 6.0 | - |
| Commercial beef ration3 | 13.3 | - |
1European Union area aid; 2based on grain to straw DM ratio of 1:0.9, 500 g DM/kg, DMD of 660 g/kg, ME of 10.0 MJ/kg DM and conservation efficiency of 880 g/kg DM; 3ME = 11.3 MJ/kg, cost = £150/tonne; Note: A land rental charge is not included
Table 4.5. Effect of including a land rental charge on the unit cost of various feeds.
|
|
No land charge |
Land charge |
(Land rental charged)5 |
|---|---|---|---|
Grazed grass1 |
|
|
(£183/ha/year) |
£/t DDM |
48.1 |
76.6 |
|
£/GJ ME |
3.4 |
5.4 |
|
First-cut silage2 |
|
|
(£96/ha for first cut) |
£/t DDM |
103.6 |
130.9 |
|
£/GJ ME |
7.0 |
8.9 |
|
Rolled barley3 |
|
|
(£259/ha/year) |
£/tDDM |
177.0 |
240.3 |
|
£/GJ ME |
11.8 |
16.0 |
|
Fodder beet roots4 |
|
|
(£366/ha/year) |
£/t DDM |
167.3 |
209.9 |
|
£/GJ ME |
10.8 |
13.5 |
|
1
11.1 t DM/ha at 170 g DM/kg, utilisation of 740 g/kg, DMD of 780 g/kg and 11.1 MJ ME/kg DM; 25.9 t grass DM/ha at 200 g DM/kg, conservation efficiency of 800 g/kg, DMD of 740 g/kg and 10.9 MJ/kg DM; 35.0 t grain DM/ha at 800 g DM/kg, storage efficiency of 970 g/kg, DMD of 850 g/kg and 12.8 MJ ME/kg DM - no EU area aid included; 413.1 t root DM/ha at 160 g DM/kg, harvest and storage efficiency of 840 g/kg, DMD of 800 g/kg and 12.1 MJ ME/kg DM; 5based on con-acre prices obtained from local auctioneers.Table 4.6. Effect of variation in yield and quality of grass at harvesting on the unit cost of silage consumed.
Unit cost (£/t digestible DM consumed) |
Grass yield (t DM/ha)1
| ||||||||||
Unit cost (£/t digestible DM consumed) |
Grass quality (g digestible DM/kg DM)2
|
1
at constant grass DMD of 740 g/kg, 2at constant grass DM yield of 5.87 t/haTable 4.7. Average unit cost of providing rolled cereal grains to ruminants.
|
|
Wheat Winter |
Wheat Spring |
Barley Winter |
Barley Spring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Grain1 yield (t/ha) |
8.4 |
6.8 |
7.4 |
6.2 |
Input (£/ha) |
|
|
|
|
Production2 |
703 |
641 |
656 |
564 |
Storage |
98 |
79 |
86 |
72 |
Feeding3 |
119 |
96 |
104 |
88 |
Total Output |
919 |
816 |
846 |
724 |
Grain DM consumed4 (t/ha) |
6.5 |
5.3 |
5.8 |
4.8 |
Grain DDM consumed5 (t/ha) |
5.6 |
4.5 |
5.0 |
4.1 |
Grain ME consumed6 (GJ/ha) |
87.3 |
69.7 |
74.7 |
61.6 |
Cost/unit |
|
|
|
|
Grain DM consumed (£/t DM) |
141 |
154 |
148 |
150 |
Grain DDM consumed (£/t DDM) |
164 |
180 |
172 |
177 |
Grain ME consumed (£/GJ ME) |
10.5 |
11.7 |
11.3 |
11.8 |
Cost unit (incl. EU Area Aid)7 |
|
|
|
|
Grain DM consumed (£/t DM) |
109 |
115 |
111 |
107 |
Grain DDM consumed (£/t DDM) |
127 |
134 |
129 |
126 |
Grain ME consumed (£/GJ ME) |
8.1 |
8.7 |
8.6 |
8.4 |
1
grain of 200 g moisture/kg; 2costs associated with fertiliser, liming, sowing, sprays, harvesting, other operations and ancillary items. A land rental charge is not included; 3rolling grain and transporting to animals; 4storage loss of 30 g/kg; 5DMD values of 860, 860, 860, 850, 790 and 790 g/kg, respectively; 6ME values of 13.4, 13.2, 13.0, 12.8, 11.7 and 11.6 MJ/kg DM, respectively, and 7£208/haTable 4.8. Effects of variation in yield of fodder beet on unit costs.
|
|
Yield (t DM/ha at harvesting)1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
9 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
Inputs (£/ha) |
1005 |
1011 |
1017 |
1023 |
Production2 |
70 |
94 |
117 |
141 |
Storage |
220 |
293 |
367 |
440 |
Feeding |
1295 |
1396 |
1501 |
1603 |
Total Cost/unit |
|
|
|
|
DDM consumed (£/t DDM) |
219.6 |
177.8 |
152.7 |
136.0 |
ME consumed (£/GJ ME) |
14.2 |
11.5 |
9.8 |
8.8 |
